Shihabudeen Vs State of Kerala

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 1435 OF 2025

¶2

 2025:KER:19178

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶7

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

CRL.MC NO. 1435 OF 2025

¶9

CRIME NO.143/2023 OF Vazhikadavu Police Station, Malappuram

¶10

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.280 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,NILAMBUR

¶11

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

¶12

1SHIHABUDEEN
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. HUSSAIN, IRACHITHODI HOUSE, VAZHEMPURAM PO,
KARAKKURRISSY, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.,
PIN - 678595

¶13

2HUSSAIN
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. KUNHALAN, IRACHITHODI HOUSE, VAZHEMPURAM PO,
KARAKKURRISSY, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN -
678595

¶14

3HASEENA
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O. HUSSAIN, IRACHITHODI HOUSE, VAZHEMPURAM PO,
KARAKKURRISSY MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN -
678595

¶15

BY ADV P.SAMSUDIN

¶16

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶17

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶18

CRL.MC NO. 1435 OF 2025

¶19

 2025:KER:19178

¶20

¶21

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031

¶22

2SHEHRABANU
AGED 31 YEARS
D/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, KOZHIPADAN HOUSE, KAMBALAKKALLU
POST, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN -
679333

¶23

BY ADV M.ANUROOP

¶24

SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: p

¶26

CRL.MC NO. 1435 OF 2025

¶27

¶28

 2025:KER:19178

¶29

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.1435 of 2025

¶31

------------------------------------
Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2025

¶32

ORDER

¶33

B.S.Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and another

¶34

[(2003) 4 SCC 675] held that the offence under Section
498A can be quashed by the High Court exercising its
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528
of BNSS, 2023), though such offence is not compoundable
under Section 320. Relying on State of Karnataka v. L.
Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699], a two Judges Bench in B.S.
Joshi (Supra) held that ends of justice are higher than
ends of mere law, though justice has got to be
administered according to laws made by legislature. The
fact that there is no reasonable likelihood of
conviction, in the wake of settlement between the
parties, was taken stock of. The following findings in

¶35

CRL.MC NO. 1435 OF 2025

¶36

 2025:KER:19178

¶37

¶38

B.S.Joshi (supra) are relevant and extracted here below:

¶39

“What would happen to the trial of the case where the
wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR
of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she
has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at
her instance due to temperamental differences and
implied imputations. There may be many reasons for
not supporting the imputations. It may be either for
the reason that she has resolved disputes with her
husband and his other family members and as a result
thereof she has again started living with her
husband, with whom she earlier had differences or she
has willingly parted company and is living happily on
her own or has married someone else on the earlier
marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent
of parties or fails to support the prosecution on
some other similar grounds. In such eventuality,
there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would
it then be proper to decline to exercise power of
quashing on the ground that it would be permitting
the parties to compound non-compoundable offences?
The answer clearly has to be in the "negative". It
would, however, be a different matter if the High
Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for
any valid reasons including lack of bona fides.”

¶40

2.The dictum laid down in B.S.Joshi (supra) was

¶41

CRL.MC NO. 1435 OF 20255 2025:KER:19178

¶42

doubted along with that laid down in other cases and
referred to and considered by a three Judges Bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. B.S.Joshi
(supra), along with other cases, were confirmed by the
Supreme Court. It is relevant to note that the subject
matter in B.S.Joshi (supra) was specifically with
reference to the offences under Section 498A and 406 of
the Indian Penal Code.

¶43

3.In the facts at hand, petitioners are the
accused persons in Crime No.143/2023 Of Vazhikkadavu
PoliceStation,Malappuram, nowpendingas
C.C.No.280/2023 of Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Nilambur. As per the final report, the offences
alleged are under Sections 498A and 406 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners
seek quashment of entire proceedings in the above
Calendar Case, on the strength of the settlement arrived
at by and between the parties.

¶44

CRL.MC NO. 1435 OF 20256 2025:KER:19178

¶45

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel for the defacto complainant/2nd
respondent and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
Perused the records.

¶46

5.When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed
to record the statement of the defacto complainant. The
said direction was complied and the statement was handed
over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the
issues between the petitioners and the defacto
complainant are settled and that the 1st petitioner and
the defacto complainant are residing together
comfortably as husband and wife. The defacto complainant
has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings
against the petitioners. That apart, it is noticed that,
along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to
by the defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein) as
Annexure-A3, wherein she would unequivocally state that

¶47

the disputes have been amicably settled and that the
complaint stemmed from misunderstanding. Furthermore,

¶48

CRL.MC NO. 1435 OF 20257 2025:KER:19178

¶49

the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant are
residing together happily, wherefore, she has no
objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against
the petitioners. The defacto complainant would also
swear that she has no grievance against the petitioners
and that the affidavit is sworn to on her own volition,
without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court, is
therefore, convinced that the settlement arrived at is
genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the defacto
complainant/2nd respondent would also endorse that the
quashment sought for can be allowed.

¶50

6.In the light of the above referred facts, this
Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters,
as culled out in B.S.Joshi (supra) and Gian Singh
(Supra), are fully satisfied. This Court is convinced
that further proceedings against the petitioners will be
a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already
been settled. There is little possibility of any
conviction in the crime. Dehors the settlement arrived

¶51

CRL.MC NO. 1435 OF 20258 2025:KER:19178

¶52

at by and between the parties, if they are compelled to
face the criminal proceedings, the same, in the
estimation of this Court, will amount to abuse of
process of Court. The quashment sought for would secure
the ends of justice. This Court also notice that the
offence under Section 406 is compoundable, which is all
the more a reason to accept the compromise between the
parties.

¶53

In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Annexure-A1 FIR, Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime
No.143/2023 andallfurtherproceedingsin
C.C.No.280/2023 of Judicial First Class Magistate Court,
Nilambur, are hereby quashed.

¶54

 Sd/-

¶55

C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

ska

¶58

CRL.MC NO. 1435 OF 2025

¶59

¶60

 2025:KER:19178

¶61

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1435/2025

¶62

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶63

Annexure A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME.
NO.143/2023 OF VAZHIKADAVU POLICE STATION
Annexure A2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORTIN CRIME.
NO. 143/2023 OF VAZHIKADAVU POLICE STATION
Annexure A3THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 31-01-2025 SWORN
IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Shihabudeen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shihabudeen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandagopal, Vs the State of Kerala

Nishanth Vs State of Kerala

Anoop C.P. Vs Aparana A.P.

Nizar.C.a Vs State of Kerala

Shifad P U Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sinan T P Vs State of Kerala